Bang on.
I'm not so bloody sure these people aren't secretly _wanting_ "piracy" to continue, so that they have a giant boogey man to scapegoat when their insipid reality-TV nonsense doesn't get viewers to flock to their channel like lemmings over a cliff.
In ~10 years, that is the greatest advantageous use of p2p the media corp.s have come up with, and they wonder why they can't quantify its (positive or negative) value to their own business models. Instead of, y'know, getting their own house in order and actually solving that problem, their senior mgmt selects a VERY well paid talking head in the form of senior mgmt to declare copyright infringement to be theft irrespective of the mechanism of its execution, as if that isn't more of the same thoughtless ideological idiocy that got them into this "problem" in the first place.
In ~4 years, they've come up with reality TV as a format to "defeat" the usefulness of in-home live-recording systems (TiVo etc.).
IOW they continue the long tradition of garbage content over business development, and this is somehow supposed to be ANYONE's problem but their own.
When NBC, et al, stop hair-on-fire turning circles and shrieking at the public over p2p, I'll begin to give a damn what it *really* means to them.
So far they've shown either idiocy or laziness. I don't care which. I don't watch TV because I hate advertising. I'm damned well not about to accept what amounts to just another damned sales pitch.
Never happen. The senseless severely outnumber the sensible at any given time and always will, and their representation in politics is weighted in the wrong direction. This applies as thoroughly to tech legislation as to any other kind.
Pragmatism is another issue. Setting aside ideological issues, sensible tech legislation won't be practical until elected politicians figure out how to make money off it.
When I wrote "make use of" and "use the device", I was implying "[make use of/use the device] as a phone/media player/web interface device"
Maybe a slighty better wording would have been:
"How it provides telephone/media services[*] to you is part of what we're marketing to you, and we've decided that it's part of what you're buying when you buy the device." [*] That is, the pre-built service provider lock-in to AT&T, among other things (unpublished APIs).
Because it alters the way in which users make use of the device, I'd guess Apple would argue it's doing damage to the product, not the phone. They'd effectively have to argue that "How you use it is part of what we're marketing to you, and it's part of what you buy".
You know, the best thing to do would increase the price on old music and decrease the price of new music. Give people the new untested stuff for cheap. That will make it easier for new bands to grow and gain mindshare. People are more likely to take risks if it doesn't cost as much.
Then you charge more for the classics. The market quite simply, will bear a higher price for great classic albums than some new no-name act. People who expect old music to be cheaper are confused. Music doesn't depreciate, it's not electronics.
But then they wouldn't profit as much from all that god-awful hormone music for which the market should last about 11 minutes per unit singer-with-choreography, and we REALLY can't have that. I mean, think of the children.
Exactly. Getting legislation passed in America has been, for probably at least 60 years, a matter of paying for it. This attempt will be successful, and it is absolutely no suprise. All legislation is offered up for sale, and virtually all of it interests someone somewhere who's willing and able to pay for it.
Mod me troll all you fucking like. It doesn't change the fact that super-special TV still isn't worth the money or the circle-jerk hassle of dealing with a super-special-TV signal provider. Jesus, as if basic, unadorned TV isn't retarded enough, it's now somehow worth it to go through more bullshit per unit time because super-special TV is more worth it, and not less.
...or, uhhh, maybe not.
To borrow a quote: "You can't polish a turd." So stop trying. That's all I'm sayin'.
Come on, seriously: Unless you've spent a Toyota Camry's worth of dough on some huge-ass digital receiver television, you probably don't give a shit.
This oh-so-exciting little conspiracy of cable television signal providers ought therefore to be relevant only to an idiot.
And I can't imagine anything less relevant than that.
This would probably get ignored as click-fraud, and if it happened often enough might get the page banned from the advertising service altogether. Good. For any website that should exist and wants to stay in business, that would be a step in the right direction.
Why are these people so intent on advertising to people who are clearly not interested in it. Are they of the belief that those of use who go out of the way to avoid these adverts, will somehow fall under their magic when we see their latest animations? Yes.
She seems to be saying "I don't see why anyone should ask a question like this, therefore everyone should stop". That's not acerbic, that's obscurantist. I believe that there is such a thing as actual "science journalism".
I understood the point of her screed to be "If you suck as a science journalist, just stop doing it". That would cut off most of them (maybe all as you suggest), but it's really just improving the signal-to-noise ratio.
My biggest problem is that "journalistic integrity" or whatever the hell they're calling it now seems to require that journalists as a whole do not self-select for topical incompetence or lack of understanding. Evidently, telling the story at all, in whatever manner, is more important then telling it correctly.
I have never in my life spoken any language with a Texas accent.
I've heard the Deep South drawl all my life, but never from someone who is thoughtful or considerate, let alone intelligent. It's a problem not because it implies poor diction or ignorance, but because it reliably represents a specific flavor of thoughtless, hostile, institutionalized idiocy. The stereotype didn't come from nothing.
And it is a fucking tragedy that the current U.S. president is one of them, nothing more than an ignominious third-grade bully, but even worse than that, he has validated the rest of the hostile, retarded hyenas who are just like him.
So I disagree, I think it was damned insightful.
Re:book smarts vs real world smarts
on
Network Warrior
·
· Score: 1
I am tired of my HR team sending candidates with a degree but no real experience because "they have an Engineering degree".
That brings to mind...Why the hell does HR have *anything* to do with who gets hired in any company anyway ? They're clearly not qualified to participate, yet they *always* seem to be involved.
Seriously, any data points about this would be appreciated.
"So let me have my beliefs, respecting yours, and I'll do the same for you. Else we really have a problem...trying to make me believe what you believe that you CAN'T probe is not fine. And people discovered this centuries ago."
Y'know, it would really help your case if you didn't effervesce from nothingness to claim as a personally directed comment the words of someone with whom you would have disagreed, if that comment had been directed at you. No one's barking at you to stop believing whatever you want.
So calm the fuck down. Such spasmodic responses are typical of you people.
Seriously, Mr I-think-I-can't-not-say-something: It makes you look like a fucking tool.
"Sounds like a fair system. To the best students go the best teachers. You want the best teachers for your child make sure the child understands the score. No way should a good teacher be forced to teach students who do not want to study."
I recently returned to grad school to finish my doctorate. It is precisely because of the obstinant, bitchy stupidity of the turds I would have had to teach that I work part-time doing whatever-the-hell instead of teaching. Really, it's a win-win for me and the so-called "students" (aka "tuition sources").
I pity the highly capable PS teachers, because of the retarded little bastards they have no choice but to tolerate.
"And... ' one of the most startling aspects of this plan is that this project is mostly made possible by an American company with solid venture fundings."
Why the hell is that startling ? There's an enormous amount of profit to be had providing the infrastructure to do this on the scale of China, and the Chinese government certainly has no ethical problem with it.
Ergo, some place had to be first. Shenzhen is it, but to do it right the Chinese government should be outsourcing the infrastructure costs. How "startling" is it that some American VC funding interest would get in on the action ?
I don't think it's even close to as improbable as it might seem.
I too use hosts file blocking, but I took a weekend (I'm not a code god) and augmented it's usefulness by developing a browser plug-in that infers whether a given image is a (putative) ad. It acquires DOM info about a particular image (size, dimensions, position in the client area) and examines the originating URL.
So far, I've gotten about 70% "true positive" results on images/frames that aren't straight-out blocked by my hosts file (~8900 entries and growing). I'm working on ways to improve that statistic in my spare time.
Also, part of the goal of this little hobby of mine is to pre-filter the html/JS source for a given document for the undesireable non-graphic-ad content (a la tracking gifs, etc.) while preserving the important stuff (like legitimate links). It's interesting work, and I really believe I'm doing something worthwhile.
Given the ad-blocking features within popular browsers parent mentioned, I know it's "NIH" to do it myself, but for me it's as much an avocation as it is my own personal ad blocker, and if I can do something in my spare time that works at least that well then there are surely folks out there who have damned-near perfect tools for this goal in their own spare time, home-grown or not.
I'd be interested to hear anyone's ideas about this kind of "personal" project.
The truly talented are the ones who need to work hard, who need to be supported and encouraged, not the profoundly inept. It's enough to pander to the unremarkable without stooping to such prattling idiocy as this.
Slashdot Mirror
In ~10 years, that is the greatest advantageous use of p2p the media corp.s have come up with, and they wonder why they can't quantify its (positive or negative) value to their own business models. Instead of, y'know, getting their own house in order and actually solving that problem, their senior mgmt selects a VERY well paid talking head in the form of senior mgmt to declare copyright infringement to be theft irrespective of the mechanism of its execution, as if that isn't more of the same thoughtless ideological idiocy that got them into this "problem" in the first place.
In ~4 years, they've come up with reality TV as a format to "defeat" the usefulness of in-home live-recording systems (TiVo etc.).
IOW they continue the long tradition of garbage content over business development, and this is somehow supposed to be ANYONE's problem but their own.
When NBC, et al, stop hair-on-fire turning circles and shrieking at the public over p2p, I'll begin to give a damn what it *really* means to them.
So far they've shown either idiocy or laziness. I don't care which. I don't watch TV because I hate advertising. I'm damned well not about to accept what amounts to just another damned sales pitch.
Never happen. The senseless severely outnumber the sensible at any given time and always will, and their representation in politics is weighted in the wrong direction. This applies as thoroughly to tech legislation as to any other kind.
Pragmatism is another issue. Setting aside ideological issues, sensible tech legislation won't be practical until elected politicians figure out how to make money off it.
That must be how Angelfire was created.
just BitTorrent the C&D instead of hosting it.
How does a group call itself "Anonymous" ?
Because it alters the way in which users make use of the device, I'd guess Apple would argue it's doing damage to the product, not the phone. They'd effectively have to argue that "How you use it is part of what we're marketing to you, and it's part of what you buy".
I've never seen on in person, only on commercials/infomercials. Just out of curiosity, how much was it ?
Then you charge more for the classics. The market quite simply, will bear a higher price for great classic albums than some new no-name act. People who expect old music to be cheaper are confused. Music doesn't depreciate, it's not electronics.
But then they wouldn't profit as much from all that god-awful hormone music for which the market should last about 11 minutes per unit singer-with-choreography, and we REALLY can't have that. I mean, think of the children.
Exactly. Getting legislation passed in America has been, for probably at least 60 years, a matter of paying for it. This attempt will be successful, and it is absolutely no suprise. All legislation is offered up for sale, and virtually all of it interests someone somewhere who's willing and able to pay for it.
Mod me troll all you fucking like. It doesn't change the fact that super-special TV still isn't worth the money or the circle-jerk hassle of dealing with a super-special-TV signal provider. Jesus, as if basic, unadorned TV isn't retarded enough, it's now somehow worth it to go through more bullshit per unit time because super-special TV is more worth it, and not less.
...or, uhhh, maybe not.
To borrow a quote: "You can't polish a turd." So stop trying. That's all I'm sayin'.
Come on, seriously: Unless you've spent a Toyota Camry's worth of dough on some huge-ass digital receiver television, you probably don't give a shit. This oh-so-exciting little conspiracy of cable television signal providers ought therefore to be relevant only to an idiot. And I can't imagine anything less relevant than that.
Retarded, isn't it ?
I believe that there is such a thing as actual "science journalism".
I understood the point of her screed to be "If you suck as a science journalist, just stop doing it". That would cut off most of them (maybe all as you suggest), but it's really just improving the signal-to-noise ratio.
My biggest problem is that "journalistic integrity" or whatever the hell they're calling it now seems to require that journalists as a whole do not self-select for topical incompetence or lack of understanding. Evidently, telling the story at all, in whatever manner, is more important then telling it correctly.
I was born in Texas.
I have lived in Texas all my life.
I have never in my life spoken any language with a Texas accent.
I've heard the Deep South drawl all my life, but never from someone who is thoughtful or considerate, let alone intelligent. It's a problem not because it implies poor diction or ignorance, but because it reliably represents a specific flavor of thoughtless, hostile, institutionalized idiocy. The stereotype didn't come from nothing.
And it is a fucking tragedy that the current U.S. president is one of them, nothing more than an ignominious third-grade bully, but even worse than that, he has validated the rest of the hostile, retarded hyenas who are just like him.
So I disagree, I think it was damned insightful.
Seriously, any data points about this would be appreciated.
Your entire response, summed by you...
"So let me have my beliefs, respecting yours, and I'll do the same for you. Else we really have a problem...trying to make me believe what you believe that you CAN'T probe is not fine. And people discovered this centuries ago."
Y'know, it would really help your case if you didn't effervesce from nothingness to claim as a personally directed comment the words of someone with whom you would have disagreed, if that comment had been directed at you. No one's barking at you to stop believing whatever you want.
So calm the fuck down. Such spasmodic responses are typical of you people.
Seriously, Mr I-think-I-can't-not-say-something: It makes you look like a fucking tool.
Think about it.
Plans, venture capitalists, or line-ups ?
"Sounds like a fair system. To the best students go the best teachers. You want the best teachers for your child make sure the child understands the score. No way should a good teacher be forced to teach students who do not want to study."
...Oh, sorry. I meant "not leave behind".
I recently returned to grad school to finish my doctorate. It is precisely because of the obstinant, bitchy stupidity of the turds I would have had to teach that I work part-time doing whatever-the-hell instead of teaching. Really, it's a win-win for me and the so-called "students" (aka "tuition sources").
I pity the highly capable PS teachers, because of the retarded little bastards they have no choice but to tolerate.
Why the hell is that startling ? There's an enormous amount of profit to be had providing the infrastructure to do this on the scale of China, and the Chinese government certainly has no ethical problem with it.
Ergo, some place had to be first. Shenzhen is it, but to do it right the Chinese government should be outsourcing the infrastructure costs. How "startling" is it that some American VC funding interest would get in on the action ?
I don't think it's even close to as improbable as it might seem.
To the parent and GP:
I too use hosts file blocking, but I took a weekend (I'm not a code god) and augmented it's usefulness by developing a browser plug-in that infers whether a given image is a (putative) ad. It acquires DOM info about a particular image (size, dimensions, position in the client area) and examines the originating URL.
So far, I've gotten about 70% "true positive" results on images/frames that aren't straight-out blocked by my hosts file (~8900 entries and growing). I'm working on ways to improve that statistic in my spare time.
Also, part of the goal of this little hobby of mine is to pre-filter the html/JS source for a given document for the undesireable non-graphic-ad content (a la tracking gifs, etc.) while preserving the important stuff (like legitimate links). It's interesting work, and I really believe I'm doing something worthwhile.
Given the ad-blocking features within popular browsers parent mentioned, I know it's "NIH" to do it myself, but for me it's as much an avocation as it is my own personal ad blocker, and if I can do something in my spare time that works at least that well then there are surely folks out there who have damned-near perfect tools for this goal in their own spare time, home-grown or not.
I'd be interested to hear anyone's ideas about this kind of "personal" project.
...and condescending.
How is it not ?
The truly talented are the ones who need to work hard, who need to be supported and encouraged, not the profoundly inept. It's enough to pander to the unremarkable without stooping to such prattling idiocy as this.
"Refliprocals"... Oh good god. Please.
TOR